Did you know there's a max amount of protein metabolized per meal and that this tops off at 20-30g? It depends on level of fitness though. Some pictures here list meals with heaps of protein.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23260197
>pubmed
LOL
i eat 80gs alone right after a workout brtween my shake and some greek yogurt
ill take this shit seriously if deez gaaains STOp., also
>pubmed
>>34945891
K.. KEEP ME POSTED
>>34945904
>>34945936
>muh anecdote
>muh reading comprehension
Pubmed is just restating what's discussed in other research.
>>34945891
Sure thing senpai.
Pic is the British Elf Mouse of no gains. Say thank you Mouse Elf or you will turn into him.
> We conclude that there is no practical upper limit to the anabolic response to protein or amino acid intake in the context of a meal.
OP, stop pretending like you're smart enough to understand this study. I don't understand it myself, but it seems to conclude the exact opposite of what you're claiming. What you claim is retarded also -- you think your body just shits out anything past 30g of protein? No it just takes longer to digest.
>>34945891
from that same article you linked
"when net protein synthesis is measured, the relationship between amino acid availability and net gain remains linear, without any apparent plateau of effect at higher levels of availability. We conclude that there is no practical upper limit to the anabolic response to protein or amino acid intake in the context of a meal."
can you even fucking read bro?
jesus christ this is embarassing.
>>34946032
>you think your body just shits out anything past 30g of protein?
would actually be a god-tier way to cut.
eat only protein, and you can only absorb 120 kcal per meal.
the rest just gets shit out.
Please, oh /fit/, enlighten me! What source do you use to find medical literature that you probably aren't able to interpret, if not pubmed? You know, the search engine that all biomedical researchers and doctors use when looking for information on shit you never even heard of? They must be blind and ignorant, for the mighty high test alpha /fit/izens look down upon it!
>>34946032
>>34946077
>research materials counter each other
I posted that study because it was the only I had saved on the topic.
Some amino acids are only digested in the stomach, btw. I read that about tryptophan at least.
Countering research is why discussions like these are helpful. It seems like they're saying (without paying for the study) that there's no upper limit because some amino acids are digested further (phenylalanine), but I can't find this study in full.
based on my own experience it doesn't matter whether I eat 6 small meals or one large meal a day if the macros are the same. the results are the same
that's all the information I need
>>34946116
Just found it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595342/
Haven't read it yet.
>>34946165
literally the same fucking study, just the full study instead of only the abstract.
i was gonna copypasta the conclusions paragraphs but its over 2000 characters. so i will just copypasta the relevant part
"the anabolic response is a function not only of the rate of protein synthesis, but also of the rate of protein breakdown. We believe that the total anabolic response to protein intake, particularly in the context of a complete meal that stimulates an insulin response, is therefore incorrectly characterized by exclusive reliance on the FSR measurement. Extrapolation of the FSR response to the conclusion that there is a maximal amount of protein in a meal that can stimulate net protein anabolism is not justified. In our opinion, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the more protein in a meal, the more anabolism will be observed."
please learn how to read and understand english.
you don't need to be scientifically literate to comprehend what this article is saying.
the more protein = the higher the protein anaboic response.
even because after protein synthesis stops increasing (you can only synthesize so much), protein BREAKDOWN decreases, meaning overall anabolism increases.
>>34946242
>literally the same fucking study, just the full study instead of only the abstract.
Obviously, and as stated.
>>34946242
>Extrapolation of the FSR response to the conclusion that there is a maximal amount of protein in a meal that can stimulate net protein anabolism is not justified.
> the conclusion that there is a maximal amount of protein in a meal that can stimulate net protein anabolism is not justified.
i felt the need to re-iterate this point, because i get the distinct impression reading is not your strong suit, so i figured it could all be boiled down to this sentence.
>>34946245
right, you said there is some research material that counters other research material.
then posted the same study twice that agrees with itself (obviously) but disagrees with the only claim you have made.
.....
do you understand why i am confused?
>www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23260197
> In our opinion, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the more protein in a meal, the more anabolism will be observed. This perspective is supported by a recent publication in this journal (22) in which consumption of 80% of the 1.5 gram protein/kg BW/day in a single meal was more anabolic than spreading the same amount of protein intake throughout the day
Let's see reference (22)
>Impact of protein pulse feeding on lean mass in malnourished and at-risk hospitalized elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial.
into the trash it goes (unless you're a malnourished or at-risk hospitalized elderly patient, the majority of literature says: 30g proteons/meal are best used for stimulation of muscle protein fractional synthetic rate
>Several recent publications, including our own (1), indicate that the maximum stimulation of muscle protein fractional synthetic rate (FSR) occurs with intake of 20 to 30 gms protein.
TL;DR if you can, spread those proteons in all your meals
>>34946269
>>the study (in the OP) seems like they saying X.. but I can't find this study in full
>>oh, here it is
You should not try to correct what you can't uphold.
>>34946116
>Some amino acids are only digested in the stomach, btw. I read that about tryptophan at least.
[citation needed]
my pharmacological knowledge of tryptophan is pretty fucking tenuous, but i am 99% sure you are wrong.
my guess is you heard the MAO-A enzymes that metabolize tryptophan (And other similar amines) exist primarily in your "gut" and that is true. gut, in this instance, refers both to your intestinal tract and your stomach.
again, i could totally be wrong on this, because my pharmacological experience is limited to tryptamine and it's derivatives, but speaking to those, they are absolutely metabolized in the intestines.
and a cursory google didn't support this claim at all....
and it seems like an absolutely stupid thing to believe, as far as evolutionary biology is concerned.
why would a body evolve to cheat itself out of nutritional absorption?
makes literally zero sense.
>>34946256
>What is context
Here:
>The theory described above predicts that there would be no practical limit to the anabolic response to protein intake with a meal.
>With greater and greater carbohydrate and protein intake a progressively greater insulin response will result, with subsequent suppression of protein breakdown, and thus a greater anabolic response.
So, no.. it's not just protein stacked in to shakes that's absorbed, but "full meals" with carbs.
>>34946256
>reading is not your strong suit,
talk for yourself, you have extrapolated sentences without context. Read the whole thing and see >>34946300
>>34945956
>oldtimer glsman/10
>>34946300
>stimulation of muscle protein fractional synthetic rate
right but that whole study is about why drawing that conclusion of FSR data is fucking useless when it comes to protein anabolism.
also its preoteins
>>34946303
nope, op said "hey you only absorb 30g protein per meal!"
then provided a link which said the exact opposite of his fucktarded claim
when we called him out on this, he claimed "oh yea, some research contradicts other research" then posted THE SAME article that proved him wrong to begin with
he never said "it seems like this study is saying X" he said "hey X is true, everybody!"
and then posted a study, the totality of which can be summarized as "X is not true"
...nice tardfaggotry, tho
Not this stupid shit again.
We've had this discussion a million times before and it's been proven again and again that the whole '30g/meal'-claim is a myth.
Fuck off, newfags.
>>34946372
>those quotes change anything i said at all
i could have just as easily quoted both of those to support my argument
more protein = less protein breakdown = higher protein anabolism
>>34946378
that is about FSR data. the whole study is about how FSR doesn't speak to total protein anabolism
jesus christ, are you fucking dense?
>>34946393
You have reading problems which extend beyond OP's glancing at a saved study for a thread on 4chan after hearing more about it.
>>34946372
what he quoted
>FSR data doesn't justify the conclusion protein anabolism doesn't increase linearly with protein intake, because it doesn't take a decrease in protein breakdown into account
and then you say
>but muh FSR data
also, your own quotes support 100% what i am saying
>there would be no practical limit to the anabolic response to protein intake with a meal.
>with subsequent suppression of protein breakdown, and thus a greater anabolic response.
the more protein you intake = the higher your protein anabolism.
>>34946428
>y-you're totally wrong
>n-not that i can explain how or why
right...
>>34946457
..Unless it's taken without carbs, a la protein shakes.
>>34946469
You're getting called out on for reading comprehension problems because you're trying to say that the same study was posted to counter the original.
>>34946471
protein shakes have carbs, just check the nutrition data. mine has 3g for every 30g protein
you cannot fully seperate all the lactose out of whey.
also you don't need carbs for insulin sensitivity or response...
also protein breakdown is still increased with protein intake regardless.
>>34945891
Did anyone actually take the effort to read the full text? (or atleast the conclusion of it?)
The study never says that you cant process more than 30g. It does say that 30g is usually enough for "optimal synthesis" (due to the role of leucine) But that has absolutely nothing to do with how much protein your body can digest from a single meal. This study does not at all claim that your body cannot digest more than 30g of protein at a time.
The low pH in the stomach disrupts the structure of most proteins. In the small intestine you have special enzymes that chop the proteins into small pieces called peptides (ultimately into di- or tripeptides, chains of 2 or 3 amino acids resp) and single amino acids. These are taken up and transported to the liver and all other tissues for further metabolism.
>>34945998
I think your confusing pubmed with review studies. A review study is a study which looks at other studies, and then draws conclusions. Pubmed is just a place where (any kind of) studies are posted to be read.
>>34946522
hence the distinction between protein anabolism and protein synthesis.
your body can hold out the amino acids and release it into your bloodstream when it needs it
or at least thats what examine claims here
http://examine.com/faq/how-much-protein-can-i-eat-in-one-sitting/
>your body is the result of billions of years of evolution, designed to survive and theive in harsh conditions, and obtain nutrients from as many sources as possible
>your body, adapted for survival, wastes any protein that's more than a small chicken breast
Nah.
>>34946522
Did you actually take the effort to read the thread? No, you don't
>>34946571
this
>>34946571
to be fair, a small chicken breast is probably only like 20-22g
>>34946471
so ketards can't protein?
as much as i hate keto and its fagtarded following, i have a strong suspicion this is wrong as fuuuuck
anyone know enough about insulin response to tell me what happens to your insulin when you eat meat on a carb-free diet?
>>34946561
Well, no.., not really. Protein synthesis always falls under the catevgorie of anabolism because it simply is an anabolic reaction. Kinda like how diesel is a fuel.
>>34946605
chicken breast is ~22g per 100g
a small chickenbreast is at least 200g
>>34946620
right.
because people talk about how much protein you can synthesize like it is how much protein your body can absorb.
but when looking at protein anabolism, its clear your body can absorb ALL the protein.
this is what i meant.
>>34946625
when i was weighing my food, a small chikkun was ~135g on average.
also my chikkun must have been shittier because the label only said 21g per 110g
>>34946620
>explaining shit to someone like they are a toddler when you aren't even as correct as them
no shit.... the sky is blue as well, fagtard
>>34946625
>>34946648
Wiki says a breast is 160g and has 31g per 100g.
>>34946648
then you ate really small chickenbreasts, ive never seen a chickenbreast lighter than 200g in my 4 years of lifting
>>34946620
>you cannot distinguish a subcategory from its supercategory
I.. question your comprehension of what a distinction is.
>>34946688
thats a cooked one you dummy
>>34946688
>31g per 100g.
holy shit what?
i need to find myself this miracle bird.
how come the nutrition data on all my chicken breast is so shit?
if my chicken had macros like that, i wouldn't even need protein powder.
just drink blended chicken.
>>34946701
*shrug*
if the "average" breast is 160g according to wiki (according to that guy), i could imagine one being 30g smaller
>>34946109
I was gonna say, if you disregard research because it comes from medline/pubmed then you might as well disregard books because they come from Amazon.com.
Did you know the speed of light is a constant?
>Haha where did you read that?
A physics textbook
>and where did this textbook come from?
I got it on Amazon.com
>HEY EVERYBODY! WOULD YOU LOOK AT THIS RETARD? HE LEARNS ABOUT PHYSICS ON AMAZON.COM!!
>>34946811
the difference is that most people here dont know how to read studies
besides that they dont know when a study is trustable, dont look at the testing conditions; tested subjects, etc.
I could do a study and come to a conclusion that only 30g of protein can be absorbed per hour, but if I test it on the elderly with digestive problems then its not really applyable to the average population(not saying that this was the case, just an example)
I have tried to explain this to /fit/ for years, you are wasting your time.
>>34945891
Holy shit people misunderstand this study so hard that it has to be intentional. I wish you fucking retards had a decent education so you wouldn't shame the species with your stupidity.
>>34946487
You need to back and reread the thread. The dude DID post the same study twice.
You're the only one with a reading disability here.
>Not even the guy you replied to just calling out your stupidity.
>>34946888
Maybe you should actually read the studies he posted which actually contradicted his claim. You are false if you believe the old ass broscience of 30g max. Go ahead, limit yourself to 30g a sitting though you fucking pleb.
>>34946951
I'm talking about for muscle synthesis retard.
http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/protein-facts
>Your body can process only so much protein in a single sitting. A recent study from the University of Texas found that consuming 90 grams of protein at one meal provides the same benefit as eating 30 grams. It's like a gas tank, says study author Douglas Paddon-Jones, Ph.D.: "There's only so much you can put in to maximize performance; the rest is spillover"
>>34947015
>menshealth
>>34945904
science isn't that hard you fucking retards
>>34947026
The citation is a study, while your knowledge comes from regurgitating shitposts.
>get BTFO
>greentext
>>34947015
>literally no citation of study
>just some ph.d going off of recommended numbers from the FDA.
>Men's health
Into the trash it goes
>>34946921
>He replies to his own post about the OP study being incomplete
>"Oh, here it is as a full study"
>implying that's supposed to be something else
>>34947026
>>34947069
>how to google before posting drivel
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760315/
>>34947157
REKT
>be me
>figure out one awesome trick that doctors hate
>eat 3 meals a day of 2500 calories, all protein
>only metabolize 60-90 grams cause I eat 3 times a day
>tfw only getting 240-360 calories per day while being full
>best cut ever
>>34946864
That's a lot different from saying:
>medline
kek
>>34947712
The point is if anything over a threshold is simply converted into glucose and burned.
It is not per meal. It is per a small area of time...
